A. Raymond Randolph

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit circuit Appointed by George H. W. Bush (Republican) 35 signed orders read

How Judge Randolph decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He roots an agency's regulatory power in an actual act of Congress, not in decades of unquestioned practice or a President's own executive order -- and will say so even when neither party in the case raised the question.

“For CEQ's regulations to be legally binding on agencies, courts, and the public, "it is necessary to establish a nexus between the regulations and some delegation of the requisite legislative authority by Congress."”

In contract and tariff disputes he reads the operative, substantive provisions the parties actually bargained for over a stray introductory recital, and will not let an agency effectively erase a negotiated term through interpretation.

“We grant Grynberg's petition for review because the Commission's interpretation of the 1968 agreement is not reasonable.”

Procedural preferences

He treats a party's own sworn, specific affidavit as competent summary-judgment evidence regardless of whether it happens to support that party's position -- 'self-serving' is not, by itself, a reason to disregard admissible testimony.

“We reject that proposition as a rule of evidence or of law.”

He enforces the finality requirement for judicial review of agency orders strictly: an NLRB ruling that remands an issue for further factual development, rather than granting or denying relief, is not yet reviewable, however clearly it signals the Board's eventual direction.

“We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”

Cautions

He requires a materially adverse employment action to be shown by concrete, objective comparison of duties before and after -- an employee's own sense of a lesser assignment, without more, will not support a discrimination claim past summary judgment.

“Affirmed.”

He treats the National Environmental Policy Act's baseline requirement strictly: an agency cannot let a temporary, never-reviewed status quo (like flights under interim operating authority) quietly become the permanent point of comparison that makes a new plan look environmentally harmless.

“the Agencies acted arbitrarily by using the air tours conducted under interim operating authority as the baseline for evaluating the Bay Area Parks Plan's environmental effects.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Municipal Defense Group v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1999-03-26
Petition for review (petitioner (Municipal Defense Group)) Denied

“The petition for judicial review is denied.”

Grynberg v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1995-12-12
Petition for review (petitioner (gas producer Jack J. Grynberg)) Granted

“We grant Grynberg's petition for review because the Commission's interpretation of the 1968 agreement is not reasonable. We therefore vacate the Commission's orders and remand the case”

Petition for review (petitioner (Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company)) Moot / procedural

“We grant Grynberg's petition for review ... and remand the case, without addressing Grynberg's other arguments and without considering Rocky Mountain's petition.”

Granholm ex rel. Michigan Department of Natural Resources v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1999-06-11
Petition for review (petitioner (Michigan Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources)) Moot / procedural

“Dismissed.”

Joseph M. Keating v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1997-06-17
Petition for review (petitioner (developer Joseph M. Keating)) Denied

“Since Keating does not contend that the Commission erred in finding his project economically infeasible in light of the Forest Service's proposed section 4(e) conditions, we sustain the Commission orders on that ground alone. The petition for judicial review is therefore denied.”

Friko Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
· 1994-08-22
Appeal (appellant (Friko Corporation)) Denied

“the Tax Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's determinations to invoke the jeopardy assessment procedure against Friko Corporation and Johnny Daccarett-Ghia. We affirm both these rulings.”

Appeal (appellant (Johnny Daccarett-Ghia, re: jeopardy assessment/levy jurisdiction)) Denied
Appeal (appellant (Johnny Daccarett-Ghia, re: fugitive-disentitlement dismissal)) Granted

“the Tax Court's order of January 6, 1993, dismissing Daccarett-Ghia's petition for redetermination of the tax deficiency is vacated and the matter is remanded for reconsideration in light of Ortega-Rodriguez.”

Andre C. Derrington-Bey v. District of Columbia Department of Corrections
· 1995-01-17
Appeal (appellant (Andre C. Derrington-Bey)) Moot / procedural

“plaintiff's appeal from the judgment of July 1, 1993, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction”

Appeal (appellant (Andre C. Derrington-Bey)) Denied

“the judgment of September 23, 1993, is affirmed.”

United States Parole Commission v. Christopher Rufus Williams
· 1995-07-20
Appeal (appellant (United States Parole Commission)) Granted

“The district court erred in granting Williams' petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ... Reversed and remanded.”

Power Co. of America, L.P. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
99-1263, consolidated with 99-1333 · 2001-04-17
Petition for review (petitioner (power marketer Power Company of America, L.P.)) Denied

“Petitions denied.”

Honeywell International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
00-1170, consolidated with 00-1274 · 2001-06-29
Petition for review (petitioner Honeywell International, Inc. (successor to AlliedSignal)) Granted

“The petition for review is granted and the Board's decision is set aside.”

Henderson v. Kennedy
00-5070, consolidated with 00-5071 · 2001-10-02
Appeal (appellants (street vendors)) Denied

“The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.”

Currier v. Postmaster General
01-5248 · 2002-10-04
Appeal (appellant (Postal Service employee)) Denied

“Affirmed.”

California Department of Water Resources v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 2002-10-18
Petition for review (petitioner (California Department of Water Resources)) Moot / procedural

“The petition for judicial review is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

Put Judge Randolph's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Randolph actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Randolph's own signed orders and cites them.